Genocide in the Bible: does this trouble anyone else?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Your argument is for the latter. Because you believe that those who did the killing were absolutely sure they were going God’s work. So if you are absolutely sure yourself then what’s to stop you commiting a similar act?

Slippery slope.

Those commands were for a specific purpose and a specific reason in a specific time.

And if God gives you a specific command for a specific purpose and a specific reason that you think is justified and you are absolutely certain that the command is from God, then what do you do?

On one hand you say that the Israelites were justified in carrying out the command but if it comes down to you carrying out what you are absolutely certain is God’s will then you baulk at it.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

And if God gives you a specific command for a specific purpose and a specific reason that God thinks is justified and you are absolutely certain that the command is from God, then what do you do?

Correct point of emphasis.

 

[Freddy]

My argument is that God’s capacity to right the moral order is far beyond our reach to comprehend.

My argument is those who did the killing were justified because they had motives of credibility that would have convinced any reasonable person that God was in fact leading them…

I’ve no problem with either of those statements. And I haven’t argued against them. Whatever God wills is just. That seems to be the common argument from your side of the fence and for the purpose of this discussion I will agree with it.

And if you want to say that those who massacred women and children were carrying out God’s will and were therefore justified in doing so, then I will accept that as well.

But you are avoiding answering what you or any other person must do if they are absolutely certain that they have received a direct command from God. Do you obey as you say the Israelites must have done?

I think that we can see a problem in that people will react differently according to what they think God wants of them. If you are absolutely certain that God wants you to spend a week helping the homeless in your town, then are you going to do it? Why would you disobey God in that case? His will must be done.

But if He asks you to sell up all that you own and spend a lifetime dedicating yourself to helping the poor…well, did that actually come from God? And if he commands you to kill women and children…well, the Israelites were certain they doing what God commanded. But you…?

Seems it’s a different argument when it becomes a personal decision.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

But you are avoiding answering what you or any other person must do if they are absolutely certain that they have received a direct command from God.

That’s the wrong emphasis. It’s whether God commands you not whether you are certain.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But you are avoiding answering what you or any other person must do if they are absolutely certain that they have received a direct command from God.

That’s the wrong emphasis. It’s whether God commands you not whether you are certain.

So if He does (and you are certain that He has), what do you do? If you were one of the Israelites then your argument indicates that you would have taken up the sword. Why not now?

 

[Magnanimity]

Let me ask you a question: does the potter have a right to do what He wants with the clay?

Romans 9-11 is St Paul’s extended reflection on the fate of his brothers according to the flesh, Israel. You might note that he concludes that lengthy reflection with the rather bold assertion, “and thus, all Israel will be saved.” (Rom 11:26). Looks like the clay will have an ok fate after all, despite whatever “hardening” may have occurred from God.

St Paul knows that humans have intrinsic dignity. They bear the image and likeness of God and thereby possess inalienable value and worth. They are not be treated like garbage by anyone (or Anyone). The Fathers knew well that any OT passage that suggests that God is doing that cannot be history. There’s no way to avoid impugning the character of God with such simplistic literalism as you’re suggesting. Besides which, the document I quoted at length above explicitly rejected ”literalism” as spelled by the pontifical biblical commission.

Modernity did a number on all of us, including the church. None of us escaped it. But thankfully, due to the Ressourcement, we Catholics are finally rediscovering the Fathers and their unbridled allegorical approach to the OT. The OT is sacred writing with a primarily spiritual/moral purpose. Reading it as history is indefensibly anachronistic.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You might note that he concludes that lengthy reflection with the rather bold assertion, “and thus, all Israel will be saved.” (Rom 11:26). Looks like the clay will have an ok fate after all, despite whatever “hardening” may have occurred from God.

That only means you have a convulted understanding of all foreign to what Paul is saying. All means all tribes, not all Israelites.

Reading it as history is indefensibly anachronistic

I guess Jesus and Paul were being anachronistic when they likened events of the past as lessons for their listeners. No, it’s your approach that is Modern.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

So if He does

There’s no if in your hypothetical. There is not even a hypothetical. He did command it.

 

[StudentMI]

There’s no if in your hypothetical. There is not even a hypothetical. He did command it.

That’s your belief. The archaeological evidence doesn’t back up a large scale invasion and conquest.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So if He does

There’s no if in your hypothetical. There is not even a hypothetical. He did command it.

Hypotheticals always have an if. We’ll agree He commanded the Israelites. They were absolutely certain. What if you are absolutely certain that God has commanded you to do something?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The archaeological evidence doesn’t back up a large scale invasion and conquest.

Already addressed that. God Himself said He’d drive the people of those cities in a panic. So it’s clear those who were left hardened their hearts.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Hypotheticals always have an if.

And hypotheticals are kinda irrelevant since we are dealing with clear commands from God.

What if you are absolutely certain that God has commanded you to do something?

My certainty is irrelevant. The issue is whether God commanded Me or not.

 

[Freddy]

My certainty is irrelevant. The issue is whether God commanded Me or not.

Whether someone has that certaintly or not IS the point of this discussion and has been been for some time. I’m at a loss to understand why that isn’t as plain to you as it is to me.

So let’s say that God does command you. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that that has happened. Do you carry out His will whatever that entails or do you question it?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Whether someone has that certaintly or not IS the point of this discussion and has been been for some time.

No it’s not. It’s whether God’s.justice is in question becuase of these commands. And the fact is: who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

 

[stpurl]

This is an interesting question.
I know people are using Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice his son to assume that God would command us to do something morally repugnant. But the Old Testament was actually foreshadowing the New Testament here. God Himself did not hesitate to sacrifice His own son for the salvation of humanity. But He didn’t sacrifice his son for ‘nothing.’

Now that Jesus has already died for us, what would be the purpose for God to ask US to kill someone? God is not only all merciful but all just.

IOW, we as Christians know that God will not ask us to commit a moral evil. Because again, part of Christian teaching is that we cannot do evil even if ‘good’ will result.

So any Idea that God will ask a Christian to commit murder or theft or arson is already ‘out of bounds.’

It is far more likely that when God speaks to us and asks us to do something that it will be to sacrifice not a person, but a ‘thing’ which is keeping us from fully following Him. He’ll be asking us to sacrifice our ‘idols’ of money, fame, or the lure of sex outside of marriage, or worldly pursuits. We will probably ‘appear’ in the eyes of ‘normal people’ to be unworldly, naive, ‘rigid’, asking the impossible, etc. IOW we will be taking up our cross, not ‘thrusting’ it onto others.

 

[HarryStotle]

Let’s use your own paradigm and see where it gets us.

You claim a woman has a right to terminate the life of the child in her womb because that life has not achieved the moral standing of personhood that you believe is the cut off for granting the right to life.

Given that the fetus is not a person with rights, the mother can kill and dismember that child, and have it removed if she wills to. She can give to another (a doctor) the authority to complete that act of terminating the child because the child is within her domain.

Presumably the fetus, as far as you are concerned, has no more moral rights than a monkey, a pig, a chicken, or (going far enough back in the fetal development stages) to an insect such as an ant or bug.

You would, I presume, argue that the difference in sophistication between a human person and a chicken or insect means that a human person need have no moral qualms about stepping on an ant, a caterpillar, or a beetle?

Would that be about right?

Well, let’s explore this notion a bit, shall we?

If the God of classical theism exists and has the characteristics he is conceived to have - infinite knowledge, infinite power, infinite goodness and absolute domain over all that exists, then the relationship that God has vis a vis human beings is akin to the relationship you or any human person enjoys with a bug or a caterpillar.

In fact, given that the traits of God are infinitely beyond your traits, then God in fact enjoys an infinitely higher moral standing than you do as compared to a bug or caterpillar or a FETUS.

Ergo, by your very own argument - that YOUR superiority of person over a fetus or a bug permits YOU to terminate those inferior, non-person, lives without any moral compunction whatsoever - then ipso facto the infinite superiority of God over you provides him with the same moral justification for terminating (even by cruelly dismembering) any human life he wills, including yours.

The chicken or bug or fetus has no say in the matter of losing their lives because you have unilaterally determined by your superiority over them that you can act as you will regarding whether they live or not.

This is your argument, one that a fortiori can be assumed to justify God’s infinite superiority with regard to willing and calling for the slaughter of human beings as he wills or commands just as you assert that a mother can rightfully have the fetus in her womb terminated if she so wills and calls for the abortion doctor to do so.

This is your very own argument that justifies God terminating any developed human life by the very same warrant a woman is justified in terminating a developing human fetus.

Tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard.

 

[HarryStotle]

Now that Jesus has already died for us, what would be the purpose for God to ask US to kill someone? God is not only all merciful but all just.

IOW, we as Christians know that God will not ask us to commit a moral evil. Because again, part of Christian teaching is that we cannot do evil even if ‘good’ will result.

So any Idea that God will ask a Christian to commit murder or theft or arson is already ‘out of bounds.’

The question isn’t one of what God would ask now that he has made the infinite sacrifice on our behalf. The question is what God did ask in the Old Testament before he completed that offering.

That could be a significant distinction.

It also isn’t what he would ask, but what he could or could be justified in asking or commanding.

 

[Freddy]

This is your very own argument that justifies God terminating any developed human life by the very same warrant a woman is justified in terminating a developing human fetus.

Tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard.

Holy Toledo. Is no-one reading what is being written?

Everyone wide awake and paying attention? Good. So read this carefully: I am not arguing about whether God has the right to take life or indeed to order the taking of the same. In fact, as I said upstream, I am more than happy, for the sake of this discussion, to completely agree with it.

Now has everyone taken that on board? One more time so there’s no doubt: I agree with you you that God has every right to command someone to carry out His wishes as He sees fit.

Good. So glad that’s been put to bed. Now meanwhile, back to the actual point I have been making these last dozen posts…

The Israelites were absolutely certain that what they were doing was God’s will. What happens if you are absolutely certain that God has commanded you to do something? Do you carry it out regardless of your personal moral position or do you reject God’s command?

 

[Freddy]

IOW, we as Christians know that God will not ask us to commit a moral evil.

So massacring women and children is not a moral evil.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Whether someone has that certaintly or not IS the point of this discussion and has been been for some time.

No it’s not. It’s whether God’s.justice is in question becuase of these commands. And the fact is: who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

I don’t believe in Him. So that question is moot. The question at hand is whether you would 'talk back to God* or comply with His command despite you believing it to be immoral.